Philosophy of Hinduism- Dr. B.R.ambedkar

8/2/2019 Philosophy of Hinduism- Dr. B.R.ambedkar

1/78

Philosophy of Hinduism______________________________________________

Contents

Chapter 1 Philosophy of Hinduism

Does Hinduism recognize Equality?

How does Hinduism stand in this matter?

Does Hinduism recognise Fraternity?

What is the value of such a religion to man ?

On what level does Hindu morality stand?

Of what use is this philosophy of the Upanishadas?

(The script published in the Writings and Speeches, vol. 3 published byGovernment of Maharashtra did not have any chapter names. It was divided in

I to VI parts. For the sake of readership convenience we are providing

additional hyperlinks to some paras by way of projecting some questions in

the text. )

Editorial Note:

This script on Philosophy of Hinduism was found as a well-bound copy which wefeel is complete by itself. The whole script seems to be a Chapter of one bigscheme. This foolscap original typed copy consists of 169 pages. Editors

CHAPTER I

Philosophy of Hinduism

I

What is the philosophy of Hinduism? This is a question which arises in its logical

sequence. But apart from its logical sequence its importance is such that it can

never be omitted from consideration. Without it no one can understand the aims and

ideals of Hinduism.

It is obvious that such a study must be preceded by a certain amount of what may

be called clearing of the ground and defining of the terms involved.

At the outset it may be asked what does this proposed title comprehend? Is this

title of the Philosophy of Hinduism of the same nature as that of the Philosophy of

Religion? I wish I could commit myself one way or the other on this point. Indeed I

cannot. I have read a good deal on the subject, but I confess I have not got a clear

idea of what is meant by Philosophy of Religion. This is probably due to two facts. In


2/78

the first place while religion is something definite, there is nothing definite*[f1] as to

what is to be included in the term philosophy. In the second place Philosophy and

Religion have been adversaries if not actual antagonists as may be seen from the

story of the philosopher and the theologian. According to the story, the two were

engaged in disputation and the theologian accused the philosopher that he was "like

a blind man in a dark room, looking for a black cat which was not there". In reply the

philosopher charged the theologian saying that "he was like a blind man in the dark

room, looking for a black cat which was not there but he declared to have found

there". Perhaps it is the unhappy choice of the title Philosophy of Religionwhich

is responsible for causing confusion in the matter of the exact definition of its field.

The nearest approach to an intelligible statement as to the exact subject matter of

Philosophy of Religion I find in Prof. Pringle-Pattison who observes [f2] :

"A few words may be useful at the outset as an indication of what we commonly

mean by the Philosophy of Religion. Plato described philosophy long ago as the

synoptic view of things. That is to say, it is the attempt to see things together-to keep

all the main features of the world in view, and to grasp them in their relation to one

another as parts of one whole. Only thus can we acquire a sense of proportion and

estimate aright the significance of any particular range of facts for our ultimate

conclusions about the nature of the world-process and the world-ground.

Accordingly, the philosophy of any particular department of experience, the

Philosophy of Religion, the Philosophy of Art, the Philosophy of Law, is to be taken

as meaning an analysis and interpretation of the experience in question in its

bearing upon our view of man and the world in which he lives. And when the facts

upon which we concentrate are so universal, and in their nature so remarkable, asthose disclosed by the history of religionthe philosophy of man's religious

experiencecannot but exercise a determining influence upon our general

philosophical conclusions. In fact with many writers the particular discussion tends to

merge in the more general."

"The facts with which a philosophy of religion has to deal are supplied by the

history of religion, in the most comprehensive sense of that term. As Tiele puts it, "all

religions of the civilised and uncivilised world, dead and living", is a `historical and

psychological phenomenon' in all its manifestations. These facts, it should be noted,

constitute the data of the philosophy of religion; they do not themselves constitute a

`philosophy' or, in Tiele's use of the term, a `science' of religion. `If, he says, 1 haveminutely described all the religions in existence, their doctrines, myths and customs,

the observances they inculcate, and the organisation of their adherents, tracing the

different religions from their origin to their bloom and decay, I have merely. Collected

the materials with which the science of religion works'. 'The historical record,

however complete, is not enough; pure history is not philosophy. To achieve a

philosophy of religion we should be able to discover in the varied manifestations a


3/78

common principle to whose roots in human nature we can point, whose evolution we

can trace by intelligible-stages from lower to higher and more adequate forms, as

well as its intimate relations with the other main factors in human civilisation".

If this is Philosophy of Religion it appears to me that it is merely a different name

for that department of study, which is called comparative religion with the added aim

of discovering a common principle in the varied manifestations of religion. Whatever

be the scope and value of such a study, I am using the title Philosophy of Religion to

denote something quite different from the sense and aim given to it by Prof. Pringle-

Pattison. I am using the word Philosophy in its original sense, which was two-fold. It

meant teachings as it did when people spoke of the philosophy of Socrates or the

philosophy of Plato. In another sense it meant critical reason used in passing

judgements upon things and events. Proceeding on this basis Philosophy of Religion

is to me not a merely descriptive science. I regard it as being both descriptive as well

as normative. In so far as it deals with the teachings of a Religion, Philosophy of

Religion becomes a descriptive science. In so far as it involves the use of criticalreason for passing judgement on those teachings, the Philosophy of Religion

becomes a normative science. From this it will be clear what I shall be concerned

with in this study of the Philosophy of Hinduism. To be explicit I shall be putting

Hinduism on its trial to assess its worth as a way of life.

Here is one part of the ground cleared. There remains another part to be cleared.

That concerns the ascertainment of the factors concerned and the definitions of the

terms I shall be using.

A study of the Philosophy of Religion it seems to me involves the determination of

three dimensions. I call them dimensions because they are like the unknown

quantities contained as factors in a product. One must ascertain and define these

dimensions of the Philosophy of Religion if an examination of it is to be fruitful.

Of the three dimensions, Religion is the first. One must therefore define what he

understands by religion in order to avoid argument being directed at cross-purposes.

This is particularly necessary in the case of Religion for the reason that there is no

agreement as to its exact definition. This is no place to enter upon an elaborate

consideration of this question. I will therefore content myself by stating the meaning

in which I am using the word in the discussion, which follows.

I am using the word Religion to mean Theology. This will perhaps be insufficient for

the purposes of definition. For there are different kinds of Theologies and I mustparticularise which one I mean. Historically there have been two Theologies spoken

of from ancient times. Mythical theology and Civil theology. The Greeks who

distinguished them gave each a definite content. By Mythical theology they meant

the tales of gods and their doings told in or implied by current imaginative literature.

Civil theology according to them consisted of the knowledge of the various feasts

and fasts of the State Calendar and the ritual appropriate to them. I am not using the


4/78

word theology in either of these two senses of that word. I mean by theology natural

theology[f3] which is-the doctrine of God and the divine, as an integral part of the

theory of nature. As traditionally understood there are three thesis which `natural

theology' propounds. (1) That God exists and is the author of what we call nature or

universe (2) That God controls all the events which make nature and (3) God

exercises a government over mankind in accordance with his sovereign moral law.

I am aware there is another class of theology known as Revealed Theology

spontaneous self disclosure of divine realitywhich may be distinguished from

Natural theology. But this distinction does not really matter. For as has been pointed

out[f4] that a revelation may either "leave the results won by Natural theology

standing without modifications, merely supplementing them by further knowledge not

attainable by unassisted human effort" or it "may transform Natural theology in such

a way that all the truths of natural theology would acquire richer and deeper meaning

when seen in the light of a true revelation." But the view that a genuine natural

theologyand a genuine revelation theologymight stand in real contradiction may besafely excluded as not being possible.

Taking the three thesis of Theology namely (1) the existence of God, (2) God's

providential government of the universe and (3) God's moral government of

mankind, I take Religion to mean the propounding of an ideal scheme of divine

governance the aim and object of which is to make the social order in which men live

a moral order. This is what I understand by Religion and this is the sense in which I

shall be using the term Religion in this discussion.

The second dimension is to know the ideal scheme for which a Religion stands. To

define what is the fixed, permanent and dominant part in the religion of any society

and to separate its essential characteristics from those which are unessential is

often very difficult. The reason for this difficulty in all probability lies in the difficulty

pointed out by Prof. Robertson Smith[f5] when he says:

"The traditional usage of religion had grown up gradually in the course of many

centuries, and reflected habits of thought, characteristic of very diverse stages of

man's intellectual and moral development. No conception of the nature of the gods

could possibly afford the clue to all parts of that motley complex of rites and

ceremonies which the later paganism had received by inheritance, from a series of

ancestors in every state of culture from pure savagery upwards. The record of the

religious thought of mankind, as it is embodied in religious institutions, resembles thegeological record of the history of the earth's crust; the new and the old are

preserved side by side, or rather layer upon layer".

The same thing has happened in India. Speaking about the growth of Religion in

India, says Prof. Max Muller :

"We have seen a religion growing up from stage to stage, from the simplest

childish prayers to the highest metaphysical abstractions. In the majority of the


5/78

hymns of the Veda we might recognise the childhood; in the Brahmanas and their

sacrificial, domestic and moral ordinances the busy manhood; in the Upanishads the

old age of the Vedic religion. We could have well understood if, with the historical

progress of the Indian mind, they had discarded the purely childish prayers as soon

as they had arrived at the maturity of the Brahamans; and if, when the vanity of

sacrifices and the real character of the old god's had once been recognised, they

would have been superseded by the more exalted religion of the Upanishads. But it

was not so. Every religious thought that had once found expression in India, that had

once been handed down as a sacred heirloom, was preserved, and the thoughts of

the three historical periods, the childhood, the manhood, and the old age of the

Indian nation, were made to do permanent service in the three stages of the life of

every individual. Thus alone can we explain how the same sacred code, the Veda,

contains not only the records of different phases of religious thought, but of doctrines

which we may call almost diametrically opposed to each other."

But this difficulty is not so great in the case of Religions which are positivereligions. The fundamental characteristic ofpositive Religions, is that they have not

grown up like primitive religions, under the action. of unconscious forces operating

silently from age to age, but trace their origin to the teaching of great religious

innovators, who spoke as the organs of a divine revelation. Being the result of

conscious formulations the philosophy of a religion which is positive is easy to find

and easy to state. Hinduism like Judaism, Christianity and Islam is in the main a

positive religion. One does not have to search for its scheme of divine governance. It

is not like an unwritten constitution. On the Hindu scheme of divine governance is

enshrined in a written constitution and any one who cares to know it will find it laid

bare in that Sacred Book called the Manu Smriti, a divine Code which lays down the

rules which govern the religious, ritualistic and social life of the Hindus in minute

detail and which must be regarded as the Bible of the Hindus and containing the

philosophy of Hinduism.

The third dimension in the philosophy of religion is the criterion[f6] to be adopted for

judging the value of the ideal scheme of divine governance for which a given

Religion stands. Religion must be put on its trial. By what criterion shall it be judged?

That leads to the definition of the norm. Of the three dimensions this third one is the

most difficult one to be ascertained and defined.

Unfortunately the question does not appear to have been tackled although muchhas been written on the philosophy of Religion and certainly no method has been

found for satisfactorily dealing with the problem. One is left to one's own method for

determining the issue. As for myself I think it is safe to proceed on the view that to

know the philosophy of any movement or any institution one must study the

revolutions which the movement or the institution has undergone. Revolution is the

mother of philosophy and if it is not the mother of philosophy it is a lamp which


6/78

illuminates philosophy. Religion is no exception to this rule. To me therefore it seems

quite evident that the best method to ascertain the criterion by which to judge the

philosophy of Religion is to study the Revolutions which religion has undergone.

That is the method which I propose to adopt.

Students of History are familiar with one Religious Revolution. That Revolution was

concerned with the sphere of Religion and the extent of its authority. There was a

time when Religion had covered the whole field of human knowledge and claimed

infallibility for what it taught. It covered astronomy and taught a theory of the

universe according to which the earth is at rest in the center of the universe, while

the sun, moon, planets and system of fixed stars revolve round it each in its own

sphere. It included biology and geology and propounded the view that the growth of

life on the earth had been created all at once and had contained from the time of

creation onwards, all the heavenly bodies that it now contains and all kinds of

animals of plants. It claimed medicine to be its province and taught that disease was

either a divine visitation as punishment for sin or it was the work of demons and thatit could be cured by the intervention of saints, either in person or through their holy

relics; or by prayers or

pilgrimages; or (when due to demons) by exorcism and by treatment which the

demons (and the patient) found disgusting. It also claimed physiology and

psychology to be its domain and taught that the body and soul were two distinct

substances.

Bit by bit this vast Empire of Religion was destroyed. The Copernican Revolution

freed astronomy from the domination of Religion. The Darwinian Revolution freed

biology and geology from the trammels of Religion. The authority of theology inmedicine is not yet completely destroyed. Its intervention in medical questions still

continues. Opinion on such subjects as birth control, abortion and sterilisation of the

defective are still influenced by theological dogmas. Psychology has not completely

freed itself from its entanglements. None the less Darwinism was such a severe

blow that the authority of theology was shattered all over to such an extent that it

never afterwards made any serious effort to remain its lost empire.

It is quite natural that this disruption of the Empire of Religion should be treated as

a great Revolution. It is the result of the warfare which science waged against

theology for 400 years, in which many pitched battles were fought between the two

and the excitement caused by them was so great that nobody could fail to beimpressed by the revolution that was blazing on.

There is no doubt that this religious revolution has been a great blessing. It has

established freedom of thought. It has enabled society " to assume control of itself,

making its own the world it once shared with superstition, facing undaunted the

things of its former fears, and so carving out for itself, from the realm of mystery in

which it lies, a sphere of unhampered action and a field of independent thought".


7/78

The process of secularisation is not only welcomed by scientists for making

civilisationas distinguished from culturepossible, even Religious men and

women have come to feel that much of what theology taught was unnecessary and a

mere hindrance to the religious life and that this chopping of its wild growth was a

welcome process.

But for ascertaining the norm for judging the philosophy of Religion we must turn to

another and a different kind of Revolution which Religion has undergone. That

Revolution touches the nature and content of ruling conceptions of the relations of

God to man, of Society to man and of man to man. How great was this revolution

can be seen from the differences which divide savage society from civilized society.

Strange as it may seem no systematic study of this Religious Revolution has so far

been made. None the less this Revolution is so great and so immense that it has

brought about a complete transformation in the nature of Religion as it is taken to be

by savage society and by civilised society although very few seem to be aware of it.

To begin with the comparison between savage society and civilised society.In the religion of the savage one is struck by the presence of two things. First is the

performance of rites and ceremonies, the practice of magic or tabu and the worship

of fetish or totem. The second thing that is noticeable is that the rites, ceremonies,

magic, tabu, totem and fetish are conspicuous by their connection with certain

occasions. These occasions are chiefly those, which represent the crises of human

life. The events such as birth, the birth of the first born, attaining manhood, reaching

puberty, marriage, sickness, death and war are the usual occasions which are

marked out for the performance of rites and ceremonies, the use of magic and the

worship of the totem.

Students of the origin and history of Religion have sought to explain the origin and

substance of religion by reference to either magic, tabu and totem and the rites and

ceremonies connected therewith, and have deemed the occasions with which they

are connected as of no account. Consequently we have theories explaining religion

as having arisen in magic or as having arisen in fetishism. Nothing can be a greater

error than this. It is true that savage society practices magic, believes in tabu and

worships the totem. But it is wrong to suppose that these constitute the religion or

form the source of religion. To take such a view is to elevate what is incidental to the

position of the principal. The principal thing in the Religion of the savage are the

elemental facts of human existence such as life, death, birth, marriage etc. Magic,tabu, totem are things which are incidental. Magic, tabu, totem, fetish etc., are not

the ends. They are only the means. The end is life and the preservation of life.

Magic, tabu etc., are resorted to by the savage society not for their own sake but to

conserve life and to exercise evil influences from doing harm to life. Thus

understood the religion of the savage society was concerned with life and the

preservation of life and it is these life processes which constitute the substance and


8/78

source of the religion of the savage society. So great was the concern of the savage

society for life and the preservation of life that it made them the basis of its religion.

So central were the life processes in the religion of the savage society that

everything, which affected them, became part of its religion. The ceremonies of the

savage society were not only concerned with the events of birth, attaining of

manhood, puberty, marriage, sickness, death and war they were also concerned

with food. Among pastoral peoples the flocks and herds are sacred. Among

agricultural peoples seedtime and harvest are marked by ceremonials performed

with some reference to the growth and the preservation of the crops. Likewise

drought, pestilence, and other strange, irregular phenomena of nature occasion the

performance of ceremonials. Why should such occasions as harvest and famine be

accompanied by religious ceremonies? Why is magic, tabu, totem be of such

importance to the savage. The only answer is that they all affect the preservation of

life. The process of life and its preservation form the main purpose. Life and

preservation of life is the core and centre of the Religion of the savage society. Aspointed out by Prof. Crawley the religion of the savage begins and ends with the

affirmation and conservation of life.

In life and preservation of life consists the religion of the savage. What is however

true of the religion of the savage is true of all religions wherever they are found for

the simple reason that constitutes the essence of religion. It is true that in the

present day society with its theological refinements this essence of religion has

become hidden from view and is even forgotten. But that life and the preservation of

life constitute the essence of religion even in the present day society is beyond

question. This is well illustrated by Prof. Crowley. When speaking of the religious life

of man in the present day society, he says how

"a man's religion does not enter into his professional or social hours, his scientific

or artistic moments; practically its chief claims are settled on one day in the week

from which ordinary worldly concerns are excluded. In fact, his life is in two parts; but

the moiety with which religion is concerned is the elemental. Serious thinking on

ultimate questions of life and death is, roughly speaking, the essence of his Sabbath;

add to this the habit of prayer, giving the thanks at meals, and the subconscious

feeling that birth and death, continuation and marriage are rightly solemnised by

religion, while business and pleasure may possibly be consecrated, but only

metaphorically or by an overflow of religious feeling."Comparing this description of the religious concerns of the man in the present day

society with that of the savage, who can deny that the religion is essentially the

same, both in theory and practice whether one speaks of the religion of the savage

society or of the civilised society.

It is therefore clear that savage and civilised societies agree in one respect. In both

the central interests of religionnamely in the life processes by which individuals


9/78


10/78

the conceptions regarding the relations between God, Society and Man. The first

point of difference relates to the composition of society. Every human being, without

choice on his own part, but simply in virtue of his birth and upbringing, becomes a

member of what we call a naturalsociety. He belongs that is to a certain family and

a certain nation. This membership lays upon him definite obligations and duties

which he is called upon to fulfil as a matter of course and on pain of social penalties

and disabilities while at the same time it confers upon him certain social rights and

advantages. In this respect the ancient and modern worlds are alike. But in the

words of Prof. Smith[f8]:

"There is this important difference, that the tribal or national societies of the

ancient world were not strictly natural in the modern sense of the word, for the

gods had their part and place in them equally with men. The circle into which a

man was born was not simply a group of kinsfolk and fellow citizens, but embraced

also certain divine beings, the gods of the family and of the state, which to the

ancient mind were as much a part of the particular community with which theystood connected as the human members of the social circle. The relation between

the gods of antiquity and their worshippers was expressed in the language of

human relationship, and this language was not taken in a figurative sense but with

strict literally. If a god was spoken of as father and his worshippers as his offspring,

the meaning was that the worshippers were literally of his stock, that he and they

made up one natural family with reciprocal family duties to one another. Or, again,

if the god was addressed as king, and worshippers called themselves his servants,

they meant that the supreme guidance of the state was actually in his hands, and

accordingly the organisation of the state included provision for consulting his will

and obtaining his direction in all weighty matters, also provision for approaching

him as king with due homage and tribute.

"Thus a man was born into a fixed relation to certain gods as surely as he was

born into relation to his fellow men; and his religion, that is, the part of conduct which

was determined by his relation to the gods, was simply one side of the general

scheme of conduct prescribed for him by his position as a member of society. There

was no separation between the spheres of religion and of ordinary life. Every social

act had a reference to the gods as well as to men, for the social body was not made

up of men only, but of gods and men."

Thus in ancient Society men and their Gods formed a social and political as well asa religious whole. Religion was founded on kinship between the God and his

worshippers. Modern Society has eliminated God from its composition. It consists of

men only.

The second point of difference between antique and modern society relates to the

bond between God and Society. In the antique world the various communities

"believed in the existence of many Gods, for they accepted as real the Gods of


11/78

their enemies as well as their own, but they did not worship the strange Gods from

whom they had no favour to expect, and on whom their gifts and offerings would

have been thrown away.... Each group had its own God, or perhaps a God and

Goddess, to whom the other Gods bore no relation whatever, " [f9]

The God of the antique society was an exclusive God. God was owned by and

bound to one singly community. This is largely to be accounted for by

"the share taken by the Gods in the feuds and wars of their worshippers. The

enemies of the God and the enemies of his people are identical; even in the Old

Testament `the enemies of Jehovah' are originally nothing else than the enemies of

Israel. In battle each God fights for his own people, and to his aid success is

ascribed ; Chemosh gives victory to Moab, and Asshyr to Assyria ; and often the

divine image or symbol accompanies the host to battle. When the ark was brought

into the camp of Israel, the Philistines said, "Gods are come into the camp ; who can

deliver us from their own practice, for when David defeated them at Baalperazirm,

part of the booty consisted in their idols which had been carried into the field. When

the Carthaginians, in their treaty with Phillip of Macedon, speak of "the Gods that

take part in the campaign," they doubtless refer to the inmates of the sacred tent

which was pitched in time of war beside the tent of the general, and before which

prisoners were sacrificed after a victory. Similarly an Arabic poet says, "Yaguth went

forth with us against Morad"; that is, the image of the God Yaguth was carried into

the fray".

This fact had produced a solidarity between God and the community.

"Hence, on the principle of solidarity between Gods and their worshippers, the

particularism characteristic of political society could not but reappear in the sphere of

religion. In the same measure as the God of a clan or town had indisputable claim to

the reverence and service of the community to which he belonged, he was

necessarily an enemy to their enemies and a stranger to those to whom they were

strangers".[f10]

God had become attached to a community, and the community had become

attached to their God. God had become the God of the Community and the

Community had become the chosen community of the God.

This view had two consequences. Antique Society never came to conceive that

God could be universal God, the God of all. Antique Society never could conceivethat there was any such thing as humanity in general.

The third point of difference between ancient and modern society, has reference to

the conception of the fatherhood of God. In the antique Society God was the Father

of his people but the basis of this conception of Fatherhood was deemed to be

physical.

"In heathen religions the Fatherhood of the Gods is physical fatherhood. Among


12/78


13/78


14/78

and principles of His government in Israel, and a summary expression for religion as

a whole is "the knowledge and fear of Jehovah," i.e. the knowledge of what Jehovah

prescribes, combined with a reverent obedience. An extreme skepticism towards all

religious speculation is recommended in the Book of Ecclesiastes as the proper

attitude of piety, for no amount of discussion can carry a man beyond the plain rule,

to "fear God and keep His Commandments". This counsel the author puts into the

mouth of Solomon, and so represents it, not unjustly, as summing up the old view of

religion, which in more modern days had unfortunately begun to be undermined."

The sixth point of difference relates to the place of belief in Religion.

In ancient Society :

"Ritual and practical usages were, strictly speaking, the sum total of ancient

religions. Religion in primitive times was not a system of belief with practical

applications ; it was a body of fixed traditional practices, to which every member of

society conformed as a matter of courage. Men would not be men if they agreed to

do certain things without having a reason for their action ; but in ancient religion thereason was not first formulated as a doctrine and then expressed in practice, but

conversely, practice preceded doctrinal theory. Men form general rule of conduct

before they begin to express general principles in words ; political institutions are

older than political theories and in like manner religious institutions are older than

religious theories. This analogy is not arbitrarily chosen, for in fact the parallelism in

ancient society between religious and political institutions is complete. In each

sphere great importance was attached to form and precedent, but the explanation

why the precedent was followed consisted merely of legend as to its first

establishment. That the precedent, once established, was authoritative did not

appear to require any proof. The rules of society were based on precedent, and the

continued existence of the society was sufficient reason why a precedent once set

should continue to be followed."

The seventh point of difference relates to the place of individual conviction in

Religion. In ancient Society :

"Religion was a part of the organized social life into which a man was born, and to

which he conformed through life in the same unconscious way in which men fall into

any habitual practice of the society in which they live. Men took the Gods and their

worship for granted, just as they took the other usages of the state for granted, and if

they reason or speculated about them, they did so on the presupposition that thetraditional usages were fixed things, behind which their reasoning must not go, and

which no reasoning could be allowed to overturn. To us moderns religion is above all

a matter of individual conviction and reasoned belief, but to the ancients it was a part

of the citizen's public life, reduced to fixed forms, which he was not bound to

understand and was not at liberty to criticize or to neglect. Religious non-conformity

was an offence against the state; for if sacred tradition was tampered with the bases


15/78

of society were undermined, and the favour of the Gods was forfeited. But so long as

the prescribed forms were duly observed, a man was recognized as truly pious, and

no one asked how his religion was rooted in his heart or affected his reason. Like

political duty, of which indeed it was a part, religion was entirely comprehended in

the observance of certain fixed rules of outward conduct."

The eighth point of difference pertains to the relation of God to Society and man, of

Society to Man in the matter of God's Providence.

First as to the difference in the relation of God to Society. In this connection three

points may be noted. The faith of the antique world

"Sought nothing higher than a condition of physical bien etre. . . . The good things

desired of the Gods were the blessings of earthly life, not spiritual but carnal things."

What the antique societies asked and believed themselves to receive from their God

lay mainly in the following things :

"Abundant harvests, help against their enemies and counsel by oracles or

soothsayers in matters of natural difficulty." In the antique world"Religion was not the affair of the individual but of the Community. . . . It was the

community, and not the individual, that was sure of the permanent and the unfailing

hand of the deity." Next as to the difference in the relation of God to man.

"It was not the business of the Gods of heathenish to watch, by a series of special

providence, over the welfare of every individual. It is true that individuals laid their

private affairs before the Gods, and asked with prayers and views for strictly

personal blessings. But they did this just as they might crave a personal boon from a

king, or as a son craves a boon from a father, without expecting to get all that was

asked. What the Gods might do in this way was done as a matter of personal favour,

and was no part of their proper function as heads of the community."

"The Gods watched over a man's civic life, they gave him his share in public

benefits, the annual largess of the harvest and the vintage, national peace or victory

over enemies, and so forth, but they were not sure helpers in every private need,

and above all they would not help him in matters that were against the interests of

the community as a whole. There was therefore a whole region of possible needs

and desires for which religion could and would do nothing." Next the difference in the

attitude of God and Society to man.

In the antique world Society was indifferent to individual welfare. God as no doubt

bound to Society. But"The compact between the God and his worshippers was not held to pledge the

deity to make the private cares of each member of the Community his own."

"The benefits expected of God were of a public character affecting the whole

community, especially fruitful seasons, increase of flocks of herds and success in

war. So long as community flourished the fact that an individual was miserable

reflected no discredit on divine providence."


16/78

On the contrary the antique world looked upon the misery of a man as proof.

"That the sufferer was an evil-doer, justly hateful to the Gods. Such a man was out

of place among the happy and the prosperous crowd that assembled on feast days

before the alter." It is in accordance with this view that the leper and the mourner

were shut out from the exercise of religion as well as from the privileges of social life

and their food was not brought into the house of God.

As for conflict between individual and individual and between society and the

individual God had no concern. In the antique world :

"It was not expected that (God) should always be busy righting human affairs. In

ordinary matters it was men's business to help themselves and their own kins folk,

though the sense that the God was always near, and could be called upon at need,

was a moral force continually working in some degree for the maintenance of social

righteousness and order. The strength of this moral force was indeed very uncertain,

for it was always possible for the evil-doer to flatter himself that his offence would be

overlooked." In the antique world man did not ask God to be righteous to him."Whether in civil or in profane matters, the habit of the old world was to think much

of the community and little of the individual life, and no one felt this to be unjust even

though it bore hardly on himself. The God was the God of the national or of the tribe,

and he knew and cared for the individual only as a member of the community."

That was the attitude that man in the antique world took of his own private

misfortune. Man came to rejoice before his God and "in rejoicing before his God man

rejoiced with and for the welfare of his kindred, his neighbours and his country, and,

in renewing by solemn act of worship the bond that united him to God, he also

renewed the bonds of family, social and national obligation." Man in the antique

world did not call upon his maker to be righteous to him.

Such is this other Revolution in Religion. There have thus been two Religious

Revolutions. One was an external Revolution. The other was an internal Revolution.

The External Revolution was concerned with the field within which the authority of

Religion was to prevail. The Internal Revolution had to do with the changes in

Religion as a scheme of divine Governance for human society. The External

Revolution was not really a Religious Revolution at all. It was a revolt of science

against the extra territorial jurisdiction assumed by Religion over a field which did not

belong. The Internal Revolution was a real Revolution or may be compared to any

other political Revolution, such as the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution.It involved a constitutional change. By this Revolution the Scheme of divine

governance came to be altered, amended and reconstituted.

How profound have been the changes which this internal Revolution, has made in

the antique scheme of divine governance can be easily seen. By this Revolution

God has ceased to be a member of a community. Thereby he has become impartial.

God has ceased to be the Father of Man in the physical sense of the word. He has


17/78

become the creator of the Universe. The breaking of this blood bond has made it

possible to hold that God is good. By this Revolution man has ceased to be a blind

worshipper of God doing nothing but obeying his commands. Thereby man has

become a responsible person required to justify his belief in God's commandments

by his conviction. By this Revolution God has ceased to be merely the protector of

Society and social interests in gross have ceased to be the center of the divine

Order. Society and man have changed places as centers of this divine order. It is

man who has become the center of it.

All this analysis of the Revolution in the Ruling concepts of Religion as a scheme

of divine governance had one purpose namely to discover the norm for evaluating

the philosophy of a Religion. The impatient reader may not ask where are these

norms and what are they? The reader may not have found the norms specified by

their names in the foregoing discussion. But he could not have failed to notice that

the whole of this Religious Revolution was raging around the norms for judging what

is right and what is wrong. If he has not, let me make explicit what has been implicitin the whole of this discussion. We began with the distinction between antique

society and modern society as has been pointed out they differed in the type of

divine governance they accepted as their Religious ideals. At one end of the

Revolution was the antique society with its Religious ideal in which the end was

Society. At the other end of the Revolution is the modern Society with its Religious

ideal in which the end is the individual. To put the same fact in terms of the norm it

can be said that the norm or the criterion, for judging right and wrong in the Antique

Society was utilitywhile the norm or the criterion for judging right and wrong in the

modern Society is Justice. The Religious Revolution was not thus a revolution in the

religious organization of Society resulting in the shifting of the centerfrom society

to the individualit was a revolution in the norms.

Some may demur to the norms I have suggested. It may be that it is a new way of

reaching them. But to my mind there is no doubt that they are the real norms by

which to judge the philosophy of religion. In the first place the norm must enable

people to judge what is right and wrong in the conduct of men. In the second place

the norm must be appropriate to current notion of what constitutes the moral good.

From both these points of view they appear to be the true norms. They enable us to

judge what is right and wrong. They are appropriate to the society which adopted

them. Utility as a criterion was appropriate to the antique world in which societybeing the end, the moral good was held to be something which had social utility.

Justice as a criterion became appropriate to the Modern World in which individual

being the end, the moral good was held to be something which does justice to the

individual. There may be controversy as to which of the two norms is morally

superior. But I do not think there can be any serious controversy that these are not

the norms. If it is said that these norms are not transcendental enough ; my reply is


18/78


19/78


20/78

No one has expounded it better than Professor Bergbon [f13]. As interpreted by him

the principle of justice is a compendious one and includes most of the other

principles which have become the foundation of a moral order. Justice has always

evoked ideas of equality, of proportion of "compensation". Equity signifies equality.

Rules and regulations, right and righteousness are concerned with equality in value.

If all men are equal, all men are of the same essence and the common essence

entitled them to the same fundamental rights and to equal liberty.

In short justice is simply another name for liberty equality and fraternity. It is in this

sense I shall be using[f14] justice as a criterion to judge Hinduism.

Which of these tenets does Hinduism recognize? Let us take the question one by

one.

1. Does Hinduism recognize Equality?

The question instantaneously brings to one's mind the caste system. One striking

feature of the caste system is that the different castes do not stand as an horizontal

series all on the same plane. It is a system in which the different castes are placed in

a vertical series one above the other. Manu may not be responsible for the creation

of caste. Manu preached the sanctity of the Varna and as I have shown Varna is the

parent of caste. In that sense Manu can be charged with being the progenitor if not

the author of the Caste System. Whatever be the case as to the guilt of Manu

regarding the Caste System there can be no question that Manu is responsible for

upholding the principle of gradation and rank.

In the scheme of Manu the Brahmin is placed at the first in rank. Belowhim is the

Kshatriya. BelowKshatriya is the Vaishya. BelowVaishya is the Shudra and Below

Shudra is the Ati-Shudra (the Untouchables). This system of rank and gradation is,simply another way of enunciating the principle of inequality so that it may be truly

said that Hinduism does not recognize equality. This inequality in status is not

merely the inequality that one sees in the warrant of precedence prescribed for a

ceremonial gathering at a King's Court. It is a permanent social relationship among

the classes to be observed to be enforcedat all times in all places and for all

purposes. It will take too long to show how in every phase of life Manu has

introduced and made inequality the vital force of life. But I will illustrate it by taking a

few examples such as slavery, marriage and Rule of Law.

Manu recognizes[f15] Slavery. But he confined it to the Shudras. Only Shudras could

be made slaves of the three higher classes. But the higher classes could not be the

slaves of the Shudra.

But evidently practice differed from the law of Manu and not only Shudras

happened to become slaves but members of the other three classes also become

slaves. When this was discovered to be the case a new rule was enacted by a

Successor of Manu namely Narada[f16]. This new rule of Narada runs as follows :

V 39. In the inverse order of the four castes slavery is not ordained except where a


21/78

man violates the duties peculiar to his caste. Slavery (in that respect) is analogous to

the condition of a wife."

Recognition of slavery was bad enough. But if the rule of slavery had been left free

to take its own course it would have had at least one beneficial effect. It would have

been a levelling force. The foundation of caste would have been destroyed. For

under it a Brahmin might have become the slave of the Untouchable and the

Untouchable would have become the master of the Brahmin. But it was seen that

unfettered slavery was an equalitarian principle and an attempt was made to nullify

it. Manu and his successors therefore while recognising slavery ordain that it shall

not be recognised in its inverse order to the Varna System. That means that a

Brahmin may become the slave of another Brahmin. But he shall not be the slave of

a person of another Varna i.e. of the Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, or Ati-Shudra. On

the other hand a Brahmin may hold as his slave any one belonging to the four

Varnas. A Kshatriya can have a Kshatriya, Vaisha, Shudra and Ati-Shudra as his

slaves but not one who is a Brahmin. A Vaishya can have a Vaishya, Shudra andAti-Shudra as his slaves but not one who is a Brahmin or a Kshatriya. A Shudra can

hold a Shudra and Ati-shudra can hold an Ati-Shudra as his slave but not one who is

a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra.

Consider Manu on marriage. Here are his rules governing intermarriage among the

different classes. Manu says :-

III. 12. "For the first marriage of the twice born classes, a woman of the same class

is recommended but for such as are impelled by inclination to marry again, women

in the direct order of the classes are to be preferred."

III. 13. "A Shudra woman only must be the wife of Shudra : she and a Vaisya, of aVaisya; they two and a Kshatriya, of a Kshatriya ; those two and a Brahmani of a

Brahman."

Manu is of course opposed to intermarriage. His injunction is for each class to

marry within his class. But he does recognize marriage outside the defined class.

Here again he is particularly careful not to allow intermarriage to do harm to his

principle of inequality among classes. Like Slavery he permits intermarriage but not

in the inverse order. A Brahmin when marrying outside his class may marry any

woman from any of the classes below him. A Kshatriya is free to marry a woman

from the two classes next below him namely the Vaishya and Shudra but must not

marry a woman from the Brahmin class which is above him. A Vaishya is free tomarry a woman from the Shudra Class which is next below him. But he cannot marry

a woman from the Brahmin and the Kshatriya Class which are above him.

Why this discrimination? The only answer is that Manu was most anxious to

preserve the rule of inequality which was his guiding principle.

Take Rule of Law. Rule of Law is generally understood to mean equality before

law. Let any one interested to know what Manu has to say on the point ponder over


22/78


23/78


24/78


25/78


26/78


27/78


28/78


29/78


30/78


31/78


32/78


33/78


34/78


35/78

tongue should be cut off; if he has mastered the Veda his body should be cut to

pieces. To the same effect is Katyayana.

The ancient world may be said to have been guilty for failing to take the

responsibility for the education of the masses. But never has any society been guilty

of closing to the generality of its people the study of the books of its religion. Never

has society been guilty of prohibiting the mass of its people from acquiring

knowledge. Never has society made any attempt to declare that any attempt made

by the common man to acquire knowledge shall be punishable as a crime. Manu is

the only devine law giver who has denied the common man the right to knowledge.

But I cannot wait to dilate upon this. I am more immediately concerned in showing

how the prohibition against the study of the Vedas to the mass of the people came to

give rise to illiteracy and ignorance in secular life. The answer is easy. It must be

realized that reading and writing have an integral connection with the teaching and

study of the Vedas. Reading and writing were arts necessary for those who were

free and privileged to study the Vedas. They were not necessary to those who werenot free to do so. In this way reading and writing became incidental to the study of

the Vedas. The result was that the theory of Manu regarding the rights and

prohibitions in the matter of the teaching and the study of Vedas came to be

extended to the arts of reading and writing. Those who had the right to study the

Vedas were accorded the right to read and write. Those who had no right to study

the Vedas were deprived of the right to read and write. So that it can be rightly said

according to the law of Manu reading and writing has become the right of the high

class few and illiteracy has become the destiny of the low class many.

Only a step in the process of this analysis will show how Manu by prohibiting

literacy was responsible for the general ignorance in which the masses came to be

enveloped.

Thus Hinduism far from encouraging spread of knowledge is a gospel of darkness.

Taking these facts into consideration Hinduism is opposed to the conditions in

which liberty can thrive. It is therefore denial of liberty.

IV

Does Hinduism recognise Fraternity?

There are two forces prevalent in Society. Individualism and Fraternity.Individualism is ever present. Every individual is ever asking "I and my neighbours,

are we all brothers, are we even fiftieth cousins, am I their keeper, why should I do

right to them" and under the pressure of his own particular interests acting as though

he was an end to himself, thereby developing a non-social and even an anti-social

self. Fraternity is a force of opposite character. Fraternity is another name for fellow

feeling. It consists in a sentiment which leads an individual to identify himself with


36/78

the good of others whereby "the good of others becomes to him a thing naturally and

necessarily to be attended to like any of the physical conditions of our existence". It

is because of this sentiment of fraternity that the individual does not "bring himself to

think of the rest of his fellow-creatures as struggling rivals with him for the means of

happiness, whom he must desire to see defeated in their object in order that he may

succeed in his own." Individualism would produce anarchy. It is only fraternity, which

prevents it and helps to sustain the moral order among men. Of this there can be no

doubt.

How does this sentiment of Fraternity of fellow feeling arise? J. S. Mill says that

this sentiment is a natural sentiment.

"The social state is at once so natural, so necessary, and so habitual to man, that,

except in some unusual circumstances or by an effort of voluntary abstraction he

never conceives himself otherwise than as a member of a body; and this association

is riveted more and more, as mankind are further removed from the state of savage

independence. Any condition, therefore, which is essential to a state of society,becomes more and more an inseparable part of every person's conception of the

state of things which he is born into, and which is the destiny of a human being.

Now, society between human beings, except in the relation of master and slave, is

manifestly impossible on any other footing than that the interests of all are to be

consulted. Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the

interests of all are to be regarded equally. And since in all states of civilisation, every

person, except an absolute monarch, has equals, every one is obliged to live on

these terms with some body; and in every age some advance is made towards a

state in which it will be impossible to live permanently on other terms with any body.

In this way people grow up unable to conceive as possible to them a state of total

disregard of other people's interests."

Does this sentiment of fellow feeling find a place among the Hindus? The following

facts throw a flood of light on this question.

The first fact that strikes one is the number of castes. No body has made an exact

computation of their number. But it is estimated that total is not less than 2000. It

might be 3000. This is not the only distressing aspect of this fact. There are others.

Castes are divided into sub-castes. Their number is legion. The total population of

the Brahmin Caste is about a crore and a half. But there are 1886 sub-castes of the

Brahmin Caste. In the Punjab alone the Saraswat Brahmins of the Province ofPunjab are divided into 469 sub-castes. The Kayasthas of Punjab are divided into

590 sub-castes. One could go on giving figures to show this infinite process of

splitting social life into small fragments.

The third aspect of this splitting process is the infinitely small fragments into which

the Castes are split. Some of the Baniya sub-castes can count no more than 100

families. They are so inter related they find extremely difficult to marry within their


37/78

castes without transgressing the rules of consanguinity.

It is noteworthy what small excuses suffice to bring about this splitting.

Equally noteworthy is the hierarchical character of the Caste System. Castes form

an hierarchy in which one caste is at the top and is the highest, another at the

bottom and it is the lowest and in between there are castes every one of which is at

once above some castes and below some castes. The caste system is a system of

gradation in which every caste except the highest and the lowest has a priority and

precedence over some other castes.

How is this precedence or this superiority determined ? This order of superiority

and inferiority or this insubordination is determined by Rules (1) which are connected

with religious rites and (2) which are connected with commensuality.

Religion as a basis of Rules of precedence manifests itself in three ways. Firstly

through religious ceremonies, secondly through incantations that accompany the

religious ceremonies and thirdly through the position of the priest.

Beginning with the ceremonies as a source of rules of precedence it should be

noted that the Hindu Scriptures prescribe sixteen religious ceremonies. Although

those are Hindu ceremonies every Hindu Caste cannot by right claim to perform all

the sixteen ceremonies. Few can claim the right to perform all. Some are allowed to

perform certain ceremonies, some are not allowed to perform certain of the

ceremonies. For instance take the ceremony of Upanayan, wearing of the sacred

thread. Some castes can't. Precedence follows this distinction in the matter of right

to perform the ceremonies. A caste which can claim to perform all the ceremonies is

higher in status than the caste which has a right to perform a few.

Turning to the Mantras, it is another source for rules of precedence. According tothe Hindu Religion the same ceremony can be performed in two different ways. (1)

Vedokta and (2) Puranokta. In the Vedokta form the ceremonies are performed with

Mantras (incantations) from the Vedas. In the Puranokta form the ceremony is

performed with Mantras (incantations) from the Puranas. Hindu Religious Scriptures

fall into two distinct categories (1) The Vedas which are four, and (2) the Puranas

which are eighteen. Although they are all respected as scriptures they do not all

have the same sanctity. The Vedas have the highest sanctity and the Puranas have

the lowest sanctity. The way the Mantras give rise to social precedence will be

obvious if it is borne in mind that not every caste is entitled to have the ceremony

performed in the Vedokta form. Three castes may well claim the right to theperformance of one of the sixteen ceremonies. But it will be that one of it is entitled

to perform it in the Vedokta form, another in the Puranokta form. Precedence goes

with the kind of Mantra that a caste is entitled to use in the performance of a

religious ceremony. A caste which is entitled to use Vedic Mantras is superior to a

caste which is entitled to use only Puranokta Mantras.

Taking the priest as a second source of precedence connected with Religion,


38/78

Hinduism requires the instrumentality of a priest for the derivation of the full benefit

from the performance of a religious ceremony. The priest appointed by the scripture

is the Brahmin. A Brahmin therefore is indispensable. But the scriptures do not

require -that a Brahmin shall accept the invitation of any and every Hindu

irrespective of his caste to officiate at a religious ceremony. The invitation of which

caste he will accept and of which he will refuse is a matter left to the wishes of the

Brahmin. By long and well-established custom it is now settled at which caste he will

officiate and at which caste he will not. This fact has become the basis of

precedence as between castes. The caste at which a Brahmin will officiate is held as

superior to a caste at whose religious functions a Brahmin will not officiate.

The second source for rules of precedence is commonality. It will be noticed that

rules of marriage have not given rise to rules of precedence as rules of commonality

have. The reason lies in the distinction between the rules prohibiting intermarriage

and inter-dining. That difference is obvious. The prohibition on intermarriage is such

that it cannot only be respected but it can be carried out quite strictly. But theprohibition of inter-dining creates difficulties. It cannot be carried out quite strictly in

all places and under all circumstances. Man migrates and must migrate from place

to place. In every place he happens to go he may not find his caste-men. He may

find himself landed in the midst of strangers. Marriage is not a matter of urgency but

food is. He can wait for getting himself married till he returns to the Society of his

caste-men. But he cannot wait for his food. He must find it from somewhere and

from someone. Question arises from which caste he can take food, if he has to. The

rule is that he will take food from a caste above him but will not take food from a

caste, which is below him. There is no way of finding how it came to be decided that

a Hindu can take food from one caste and not from another. By long series of

precedent every Hindu knows from what caste he can take food and from what caste

he cannot. This is determined chiefly by the rule followed by the Brahmin. A caste is

higher or lower according as the Brahmin takes from it food or not. In this connection

the Brahmin has a very elaborate set of rules in the matter of food and water. (1) He

will take only water from some and not from others. (2) A brahmin will not take food

cooked in water by any caste. (3) He will take only food cooked in oil from some

castes. Again he has a set of rules in the matter of the vessels, in which he will

accept food and water. He will take food or water in an earthen vessel from some

castes, only in metallic vessel from some and only in glass vessel from others. Thisgoes to determine the level of the castes. If he takes food cooked in oil from a caste

its status is higher than the caste from which he will not. If he takes water from a

caste its status is higher than the caste from which he will not. If he takes water in a

metallic vessel that caste is higher than the caste from which he will take water in an

earthen vessel. Both these castes are higher than the caste from which he will take

water in a glass vessel. Glass is a substance which is called (Nirlep) (which


39/78


40/78


41/78

robbed them of their jewels, although they loudly remonstrated. Sanatkumara came

from Brahma's heaven, and addressed to him an admonition, which however, he did

not regard. Being then straightway cursed by the incensed rishis, he perished, this

covetous monarch, who, through pride of power, had lost his understanding. This

glorious being (virat), accompanied Urvasi, brought down for the performance of

sacred rites the fires which existed in the heaven of the Gandharvas, properly

distributed into three.

A third collision is reported to have occurred between the Brahmins and King

Nahusha. The story is given in great details in the Udyogaparva of the Mahabharat.

It is there recorded:

"After his slaughter of the demon Vrittra, Indra became alarmed at the idea of

having taken the life of a Brahmin (for Vrittra was regarded as such), and hid himself

in waters. In consequence of the disappearance of the king of gods, all affairs,

celestial as well as terrestrial, fell into confusion. The rishis and Gods then applied to

Nahusha to be their king. After at first excusing himself on the plea of want of power,Nahusha at length, in compliance with their solicitations, accepted the high function.

Up to the period of his elevation he had led a virtuous life, but he now became

addicted to amusement and sensual pleasure; and even aspired to the possession

of Indrani, Indra's wife, whom he had happened to see. The queen resorted to the

Angiras Vrihaspati, the preceptor of the Gods, who engaged to protect her. Nahusha

was greatly incensed on hearing of this interference; but the Gods endeavoured to

pacify him, and pointed out the immorality of appropriating another person's wife.

Nahusha, however, would listen to no remonstrance, and insisted that in his

adulterous designs he was not worse than Indra himself; "The renowned Ahalya, a

rish's wife, was formerly corrupted by Indra in her husband's lifetime; why was he not

prevented by you? And many barbarous acts, and unrighteous deeds, and frauds

were perpetrated of by old Indra; Why was he not prevented by you?" The Gods,

urged by Nahusha, then went to bring Indrani; but Vrihaspati would not give her up.

At his recommendation, however, she solicited Nahusha for some delay, till she

should ascertain what had become of her husband. This request was granted. The

Gods next applied to Vishnu on behalf of Indra ; and Vishnu promised that if Indra

would sacrifice to him, he should be purged from his guilt, and recover his dominion,

while Nahusha would be destroyed. Indra sacrificed accordingly; and the result is

thus told ; "Having divided the guilt of Brahmanicide among trees, rivers, mountains,the earth, women and the elements, Vasava (Indra), lord of the Gods, became freed

from suffering and sin, and self governed. "Nahusha was by this means, shaken

from his place. But he must have speedily regained his position, as we are told that

Indra was again ruined, and became invisible. Indrani now went in search of her

husband; and by the help of Upasriti (the Goddess of night and revealer of secrets)

discovered him existing in a very subtle form in the stem of a lotus growing in a lake


42/78

situated in a continent within an ocean north of the Himalaya. She made known to

him the wicked intention of Nahusha, and entreated him to exert his power, rescue

her from danger, and resume his dominion. Indra declined any immediate

interposition on the plea of Nahusha's superior strength; but suggested to his wife a

device by which the usurper might be hurled from his position. She was

recommended to say to Nahusha that "if he would visit her on a celestial vehicle

borne by rishis, she would with pleasure submit herself to him". The question of the

Gods accordingly went to Nahusha, by whom she was graciously received, and

made this proposal:" I desire for thee, king of the Gods, a vehicle hitherto unknown,

such as neither Vishnu, nor Rudra, nor the asuras, nor the rakshases employ. Let

the eminent rishis, all united, bear thee, lord, in a car; this idea pleases me".

Nahusha receives favourably this appeal to his vanity, and in the course of his reply

thus gives utterance to his self congratulation: "He is a personage of no mean

prowess who makes the Munis his bearers. I am a fervid devotee of great might, lord

of the past, the future and the present. If I were angry the world would no longerstand; on me everything depends.... Wherefore, 0 Goddess I shall, without doubt,

carry out what you propose. The seven rishis, and all the Brahman rishis, shall carry

me. Behold beautiful Goddess, my majesty and my prosperity. "The narrative goes

on: "Accordingly this wicked being, irreligious, violent, intoxicated by the force of

conceit, and arbitrary in his conduct, attached to his car the rishis, who submitted to

his commands, and compelled them to bear him". Indrani then again resorts to

Vrihaspati, who assures her that vengeance will soon overtake Nahusha for his

presumption; and promises that he will himself perform a sacrifice with a view to the

destruction of the oppressor, and the discovery of Indra's lurking place. Agni is then

sent to discover and bring Indra to Vrihaspati ; and the latter, on Indra's arrival,

informs him of all that had occurred during his absence. While Indra with Kuvera,

Yama, Soma, and Varuna, was devising means for the destruction of Nahusha, the

sage Agastya came up, congratulated Indra on the fall of his rival, and proceeded to

relate how it had occurred: "Wearied with carrying the sinner Nahusha, the eminent

divine rishis, and the spotless brahman-rishis asked that divine personage Nahusha

(to solve) a difficulty: 'Dost thou, Vasava, most excellent of conquerors, regard as

authoritative or not those Brahmana texts which are recited at the immolation of

king?' 'No', replied Nahusha, whose understanding was enveloped in darkness. The

rishis rejoined: 'Engaged in unrighteousness, thou attainest not unto righteousness:these texts, which were formerly uttered by great rishis, are regarded by us as

authoritative. 'The (proceeds Agastya) disputing with the munis, impelled by

unrighteousness, touched me on the head with his foot. In consequence of this the

king's glory was smitten and his prosperity departed. When he had instantly become

agitated and oppressed with fear, I said to him, ' Since thou, O fool, condiments that

sacred text, always held in honor, which has been composed by former sages, and


43/78

employed by Brahman-rishis, and hast touched my head with thy foot, and

employest the Brahmalike and irresistable rishis as bearers to carry thee,

therefore, short of thy lustre and all thy merit exhausted, sink down, sinner,

degraded from heaven to earth. For then thousand years thou shalt crawl in the form

of a huge serpent. When that period is completed, thou shalt again ascend to

heaven. `So fell that wicked wretch from the sovereignty of the Gods."

Next there is a reference to the conflict between King Nimi and the Brahmins. The

Vishnu Puran relates the story as follows :

"Nimi had requested the Brahman-rishi Vasishtha to officiate at a sacrifice, which

was to last a thousand years, Vasishtha in reply pleaded a pre-engagement to Indra

for five hundred years, but promised to return at the end of that period. The king

made no remark, and Vasishtha went away, supposing that he had assented to this

arrangement. On his return, however, the priest discovered that Nimi had retained

Gautama (who was equal with Vasishtha a Brahman-rishi) and others to perform the

sacrifices ; and being incensed at the neglect to give him notice of what wasintended, he cursed the king, who was then asleep, to lose his corporeal form. When

Nimi awoke and learnt that he had been cursed without any previous warning, he

retorted, by uttering a similar curse on Vasishtha, and then died. In consequence of

this curse the vigour of Vasistha, however, received from them another body when

their seed had fallen from them at the sight of Urvasi. Nimi's body was embalmed.

At the close of the sacrifice which he had begun, the Gods were willing, on the

intercession of the priests, to restore him to life, but he declined the offer, and was

placed by the deities, according to his desire, in the eyes of all living creatures. It is

in consequence of this fact that they are always opening the shutting. (nimishas

means "the twinkling of the eye")." Manu mentions another conflict between the

Brahmins and King Sumukha. But of this no details are available.

These are instances of conflict between the Brahmins and the Kshatriya Kings.

From this it must not be supposed that the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas as two

classes did not clash. That there were clashes between these two classes as

distinguished from conflicts with kings is abundantly proved by material the historic

value of which cannot be doubted. Reference may be made to three events.

First is the contest between two individuals Vishvamitra the Kshatriya and

Vasishtha the Brahmin. The issue between the two was whether a Kshatriya can

claim Brahmahood. The story is told in Ramayana and is as follows :-"There wasformerly, we are told, a king called Kusa, son of Prajapati, who had a son called

Kushanabha, who was father of Gadhi, the father of Visvamitra. The latter ruled the

earth for many thousand years. On one occasion, when he was making a circuit of

the earth, he came to Vasishtha's hermitage, the pleasant abode of many saints,

sages, and holy devotees, where, after at first declining he allowed himself to be

hospitably entertained with his followers. Visvamitra, however, coveting the


44/78

wondrous cow, which had supplied all the dainties of the feast, first of alt asked that

she should be given to him in exchange for a hundred thousand common cows,

adding that "she was a gem, that gems were the property of the king, and that,

therefore, the cow was his by right". On this price being refused the king advances

immensely in his offers, but all without effect.

He then proceeds very ungratefully and tyrannically, it must be allowedto have

the cow removed by force, but she breaks away from his attendants, and rushes

back to her master, complaining that he was deserting her. He replied that he was

not deserting her, but that the king was much more powerful than he. She answers,

"Men do not ascribe strength to a Kshatriya; the Brahmins are stronger. The

Strength of Brahmins is divine, and superior to that of Kshatriya. Thy strength is

immeasurable. Visvamitra, though of great vigour, is not more powerful than thou.

Thy energy is invincible. Commission me, who have been acquired by the

Brahmanical power, and I will destroy the pride, and force, and attempt of this

wicked prince".She accordingly by her bellowing creates hundreds of Pahlavas, who destroy the

entire host of Visvamitra, but are slain by him in their turn. Sakas and Yavans, of

great power and valour, and well armed, were then produced who consumed the

king's soldiers, but were routed by him. The cow then calls into existence by her

bellowing, and from different parts of her body, other warriors of various tribes, who

again destroyed Visvamitra's entire army, foot soldiers, elephants, horses, chariots,

and all. "A hundred of the monarch's sons, armed with various weapons, then

rushed in great fury on Vashistha, but were all reduced to ashes in a moment by the

blast of that sage's mouth. Vishvamitra, being thus utterly vanquished and humbled,

appointed one of his sons to be regent, and travelled to the Himalaya, where he

betook himself to austerities, and thereby obtained a vision of Mahadeva, who at his

desire revealed to him the science of arms in all its branches, and gave him celestial

weapons with which, elated and full of pride, he consumed the hermitage of

Vashishtha, and put its inhabitants to flight.

Vashishtha then threatens Vishvamitra and uplifts his Brahminical mace.

Vishvamitra too, raises his fiery weapon and calls out to his adversary to stand.

Vashishtha bids him to show his strength, and boasts that he will soon humble his

pride. He asks : "What comparison is there between a Kshatriya's might, and the

great might of a Brahman? Behold, thou contemptible Kshatriya, my divineBrahmanical power".

The dreadful fiery weapon uplifted by the son of Gadhi was then quenched by the

rod of the Brahman, as fire is by water. Many and various other celestial missiles, as

the nooses of Brahma, Kala (time), and Varuna, the discus of Vishnu, and the trident

Siva, were hurled by Vishvamitra at his antagonist, but the son of Brahma swallowed

them up in his all-devouring mace. Finally, to the intense consternation of all the


45/78

Gods, the warrior shot off the terrific weapon of Brahma (Brahmastra) ; but this was

equally ineffectual against the Brahmanical sage. Vashishtha had now assumed a

direful appearance: 'Jets of fire mingled with smoke darted from the pores of his

body; the Brahminical mace blazed in his hand like a smokeless mundane

conflagration, or a second sceptre of Yama".

Being appeased, however, by the munis, who proclaimed his superiority to his

rival, the sage stayed his vengeance ; and Vishvamitra exclaimed with a groan :

'Shame on a Kshatriya's strength ; the strength of a Brahman's might alone is

strength ; by the single Brahmanical mace all my weapons have been destroyed. '

No alternative now remains, to the humiliated monarch, but either to acquiesce in

this helpless inferiority, or to work out his own elevation to the Brahmanical order. He

embraces the latter alternative: "Having pondered well this defeat, I shall betake

myself, with composed senses and mind, to strenous austere fervour, which shall

exalt me to the rank of a Brahman". Intensely vexed and mortified, groaning and full

of hatred against his enemy, he travelled with his queen to the south, and carried hisresolution into effect; and we are first of all told that three sons Havishyanda,

Madhusyanda, and Dridhanetra were born to him.

At the end of a thousand years Brahma appeared, and announced that he had

conquered the heaven of royal sages (Rajarshis) ; and, in consequence of his

austere fervour, he was recognised as having attained that rank. Vishvamitra,

however, was ashamed, grieved, and incensed at the offer of so very inadequate a

reward, and exclaimed: " I have practised intense austerity, and the Gods and Rishis

regard me only as a Rajarshi and not as a Brahman. "There is conflict recorded

between the same persons or different persons of the same name though on a

somewhat different issue.

King Trisanku, one of Ikshvaku's descendants, had conceived the design of

celebrating a sacrifice by virtue of which he should ascent bodily to heaven. As

Vashistha, on being summoned, declared that the thing was impossible (asakyam),

Trisanku travelled to the south, where the sage's hundred sons were engaged in

austerities, and applied to them to do what their father had declined. Though he

addressed them with the greatest reverence and humility, and added that "the

Ikshvaku regarded their familypriests as their highest resource in difficulties, and

that, after their father, he himself looked to them as his tutelary deities "he received

from the haughty priests the following rebuke for his presumption : "Asakyam" "Fool,thou hast been refused by thy truth speaking preceptor. How is it that, disregarding

his authority, thou hast resorted to another school (sakha). The family priest is the

highest oracle of all the Ikshvakus', and the command of that veracious personages

cannot be transgressed. Vashishtha, the divine Rishi, has declared that 'the thing

cannot be'; and how can we undertake thy sacrifice? Thou art foolish king; return to

thy capital. The divine (Vashishtha) is competent to act as priest of the three worlds;


46/78

how can we shew him disrespect?" Trisanku then gave them to understand that as

his preceptor and "his preceptor's sons had declined compliance with his requests,

he should think of some other expedient". In consequence of his venturing to

express this presumptuous intention, they condemned him by their imprecation to

become a Chandala.

As this curse soon took effect, and the unhappy king's form was changed into that

of a degraded outcast, he resorted to Vishvamitra (who, as we have seen, was also

dwelling at this period in the south), enlarging on his own virtues and piety, and

bewailing his fate. Vishvamitra commiserated his condition, and promised to

sacrifice on his behalf, and exalt him to heaven in the same Chandala form to which

he had been condemned by his preceptor's curse. "Heaven is now as good as in thy

possession, since thou hast resorted to the son of Kusika". He then directed that

preparations should be made for the sacrifice, and that all the Rishis, including the

family of Vashishtha should be invited to the ceremony. The disciples of Vishvamitra,

who had conveyed his message, reported the result on their return in these words :"Having heard your message, all the Brahmans are assembling in all the countries,

and have arrived, excepting Mahodaya (Vashishtha)? Hear what dreadful words

those hundred Vashishthas, their voices quivering with rage, have uttered : " How

can the Gods and Rishis consume the oblation at the sacrifice of that man,

especially if he be a Chandala, for whom a Kshatriya is officiating priest? How can

illustrious Brahmans ascend to heaven after eating the food of a Chandala, and

being entertained by Vishvamitra? "These ruthless words all Vashishthas, together

with Mahodaya, uttered, their eyes inflamed with anger.

Vishvamitra, who was greatly incensed on receiving this, message by a curse

doomed the sons of Vashishtha to be reduced to ashes, and reborn as degraded

outcasts (mritapah) for seven hundred births, and Mahodaya to become a Nishada.

Knowing that this curse had taken effect, Vishvamitra then after eulogizing Trisanku,

proposed to the assembled Rishis that the sacrifice should be celebrated. To this

they assented, being actuated by fear of the terrible sage's wrath. Vishvamitra

himself officiated at the sacrifices as vajakas ; and the other Rishis as priests

(Ritvijah) (with other functions) performed all the ceremonies. Vishvamitra next

invited the gods to partake of the oblations ; "When, however, the deities did not

come to receive their portions, Vishvamitra became full of wrath, and raising aloft

the sacrificial ladle, thus addressed Trisanku : 'Behold, O monarch, the power ofaustere fervour acquired by my own efforts. I myself, by my own energy, will conduct

thy to heaven.

Ascend to that celestial region which is so arduous to attain in an earthly body. I

have surely earned SOME reward of my austerity '. "Trisanku ascended instantly to

heaven in the sight of Munis. Indra, however, ordered him to be gone, as a person

who, having incurred the curse of his spiritual preceptors, was unfit for the abode of


47/78

the celestials :and to fall down headlong to earth. He accordingly began to

descend, invoking loudly, as he fell, the help of his spiritual patron. Vishvamitra,

greatly incensed, called out to him to stop: "Then by the power of his divine

knowledge and austere fervour created, like another Prajapati, other Seven Rishis (a

constellation so called) in the southern part of the sky. Having proceeded to this

quarter of the heavens, the renowned sage, in the midst of the Rishis, formed

another garland of stars, being overcome with fury. Exclaiming, 'I will create another

Indra, or the world shall have no Indra at all', he began, in his rage, to call Gods also

into being".

The Rishis, Gods, (Suras), and Asuras now becam

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	veeramani-mani
View:	275 times
Download:	1 times

Philosophy of Hinduism- Dr. B.R.ambedkar

Documents